HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/21/1975lu I I lul '9l Ir�L
I,I, ,IA ,,'G',I „E N 'D l-A'' '
N.I14„.
PETALUMA CITY' PLANNING" 'COMKISSION
OCTOBER 21, 1975
!it
'I , •
E � UI;AR'" IMEETI'�NG,
R G I
II
.iiiI' '71:30
' i'
,CITY COUNCIL: CHAMBERS, HALL', CITY - ,PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
�
t PLE-DGEI ALLEGIANCEq,'•TO!ti,THE !FL-
"
Bo
ROLL '!CALL: „ ;Comm nd ..", ; .
r
`'' ^"Head`'goss.�,° P Hbr,c'iza Pop.P
" Wasters' Wright
STAFF: Dennis: B6ehlj',e;.,
Planning --Director
LeoP. Racha`l
"'=As's'or ate "P'lanner
I
APPROVAL; OFTMINUTES
I I II ,
Ip I
,
CORRESPONDENCE
i
.,.II
" RTIN't GAVRILOEF`LETTER'-
t b Marth, A:• Gavrrloff cohcer ' g" ' 11'egal
Re ues ' y- Alp i
•
;IDIS'CUSS!ION'r-`OF I1;LEGALi1I '
';coriverlsions`.'to'f'*'-gar'age's'I'into"' living, facilities.
CONVERSION
Iq I,w I I • IN IP WI��„'lil � ! � II�I� a� , h. •� �
I „.I ' , , .. .,-�
• u
--
L'ARRY PARKS = iS.ITE'
Site"'"des "'n'''rev 'ew, consideration' f"or the 'remodel-ing
g
DESIGN." REVIEW
and conversiori'of an'exs,tingsirigle-family r'esi-
dence at &2§. E.'I Washington Street- to a real estate
® F
office
i,
QANTAS "DEVELOP•MENT' CORP
onsi der•• -t he 'adequacy' of the
to c i
,I y
t " ° u' , I
EIR' FOR MILLMEISTER
't ' I h:tal 'Impact' 'Report'"submitted° by IDel-
Draft
';' 'I BIIP,ROPNERTY,:•I
Davis. & Ass'oczates insofa''r� as its, compl-e ion e
I,
[ '- nr e wi'tYi' State, ui, , , : es fo
comR -a c- _ g. , r the Planned
GI"Lr.rl I. 'III q L. ;
�ICommtmTkty'D st'-rict development•'proposed;,'tiy,,Qantas.
,. ,
m'etirt Corpor-anon for the-'M7llmeister
Develop. •
dlyI' I Itl, Ix �1
1
*�
P ropeity':on No aMcDowell Blvd.
BUSINESS:,
ointment-,lof-:Co11 i-s:sione•rs to cU,mmItural
.�
:A&P'vioSateDesnReview'Committee;Sutdisnmtg- -'
tee,,'and;;'Histor c.&-,;CIilturd'1'',P:r.eservation, Committee.`
ADJOURNMENT:,Adjourn
to study session on,°the Rules -and Regulations
of the. P'larncing"Commr°ssion.
,I i 91 I
,11 ,",� ,161, m1 "C' 1'Ip, II �i I, �!•"I. ;r ,I Iis I ' II ',III d �V I ��,i I "��.•, ,� i .IC .j "!'I .� , '.i � ' I .A �.
I Np, ' 'hl 1; p • ' it I ' . ,
ail '.. ��, 9•li al" , , ,i VII mi"^flll• .. " ,• ..
M I N..U' 'T E. S'
I 'I'
OTAL'UMA CITY � PLANNING" COMMISSION" " "1 OCTOBER',"21, ,1975
.C.-I"T
C ". 4 r °i. - 9 '
„I 'GU „, 7 : 30 •P .
LAR MEETING M..
OUNCIL CHAMBERS,' CITY HALL' P'EALUMA, CALI-FORNIA" "
I'l16 iuiii,: ,'IPw I, �I i nl�,^ I'• n .• n ,N P,r F I I ,„,1h„. i yil� I, r
PRESENT . Comm. Bond*; Head,`Horciza, Waters, Wright
*Letitl..,atl'"I"9;25' "p,m. "'„ I'• ;
ABSENT': Co'mia: Hi lligoss ;PloppT,
''�I,m� 'JIB' I mt�l- '""I
_ I• ' I ,
f 1
'Deniiis .BoehlJe,`.Planri'ng. Dirtee't'or
"I'II,:.Leo•,I„,rP h Rachal;. Associate,,Planner,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of October.14., 1975, were approved'as submitted-
•
I ,a.. .k. - � ,°� denu:ly .. .II•. '�I - 'I• � �-�` ' NN 1"° I,- i '
I'CORRESPONDEIN,CE;: ` Mr,. ° .Bo'ehlje ,adv's.'ed theCommisslori Ghat a' petition 'containing
approximately 26'0, si natures, had -been `addressed to -the Zoning
dminisltra`tor Cit of, 'P.eta uma", ",from' res'id'en'ts in, the area sur-
u gthe,
I' p e anal, GuidanceN Ceniter (formerly the
roundin fh
. � � I "� ,I ,I�,,II °'•: �! . e' Petaluma ,Car
Keokuk Convalesce'nt'HQs ital) located at 701 Monroe.S.treet. He.
N � ,.
f:urther,' advised that several letters i,tol the„ I Po,P, rosed new owners, -
�'•. t"G b rwar,d'edrsta�tinheinetaluma Care: and Guidance Center had
now the g ,
peen, f�o g August, "•re.questing;, them -to come. in and
talk about possibly obtaining a. .new Use�Permit or possible vio
"
II'I la"tionsl' o'f°'the ex�irsting Us 'Permit "'Mr Soeh,'lje advised that the
last letter,, on October 14, 1975,,was the standard letter
.
allowiri'g '20' da"ys :I'from re' cept.:of''the' Tett"er .for the applicant' "to"
come, -into' compliance wi-th the' conditions' of' the Use 'Permit: or have
it revoked. The ,assumption of the or.i ginal"Use Permit was'that
th'ere''would rl'be ia,"maximum of 93 b:eds" for , ger;'iatzi.c, p.a.tients ,-wit'h „
some psychiatric problems, and the remainder of the facility would'
a e
b fpr•. rconva4les'aenV, ur osew. Mr Boehl.j e3 advised that :it was now,,
P P
the Ci y dersf all ages,• however'° that 'fact 'would have' to 'bet
t `s un t'andin that the- acilit would be used 1
mental, pa'ti-tents o' ,. '`
clarified,,
A"'"discuss'ion f I1owed" ,as' to whet'her the petitioners w.er. g e re is-
" -tere.d "voter's''''and wand° owr►e'rs. Mrr. Boelilje advised that land
p ..- k p owners g would, robabl begn a e'titi'on. He stated,'that a,
own i was not wired to+ si
I, Bo p y held sometime in November. Mr: public' hearing wou !^
uq ehl e al•sV st'at'ed' :that, the! etitaone.rs. were; aware%,,6fs .the' pro.
cedures the'' y,; 'p_ r-,es'
City has to fol-low and the fac�t..tha those roced`u
N, a
j w+',' had already '''been''' started.
„ Mr. Boeh1J°e' 'adviseda hone. eon v :'tfiat• persaton_with''the' Pr'e'siderit
of the new corporation revealed that, he could specify the numbers
of beds being used, but could not give a breakdown Hof the.specfic
p gg y l l
they,- not as' tim fiat•. u usea eat th'i e The licensn a enc had also advised t
ccom lash a new, check'to':"see what beds are airtua'_ y
hl N j III„ b.eiig occupied un"litil. 'Ithe" n'ew= ;owners' notify ,them. Mr. Boehal"+^J e ° !'
concluded by, saying that the Use .Permit'.was not, being used for
primarily "geria'tr"ic' patrent's as it was. assumed to be at the time
A issuance"„o•f„, the Use. Permit.
'I
I "Ili ! illr' nll o- I I •. I .I '.' ' , , ..,
0
Petaluma City, Planning Commission Minutes,.October 21, 1975
'MARTIN GAVRILOFF Mr. 'B'oehlj e .referred to the staff r.ep;ort .regarding:, illegal. con -
LETTER - DISCUSSION version of garages to living_ facilities'' and` informed the: _C.om- •
OF ILLEGAL miss on they .were not 'being asked to deal with 'a s,p:ecif c
CONVERSION: but with 'the. overall "problem: The staff report .was then briefly
reviewed and comments from the Commss"ioners'were requested..
Comm., Wright stated he felt this was a .classic example of'over-
legislation,, and he ,felt the ordinance requ-iring,the one 'covered
parking space should be done away with. He' adde-d•that per the
ordinance should require that new units should contain one covered,
parking space:, but it, should- be left' up. to the ;individual property
owner after that.. Comm. Wright also did not feel fines or penal-
ties were in order. Comm. Head voiced his agreement andalso
s'tate,d •that if a person had -the 'option at th'e ,time. of . cons.t=ruc=
tioxi,, they could p"ossbly c:ut down on the cost of their home., He
also:sta-ted he. felt that alternate #4 of the staff report' ut.ilizin"g
the Grandfather Claus& for all existing =illegal conversions', but .•
levying .a stiff penalty or',fine upon any future illegal conver-
sipn°s, -should be adop'ted•. Mr. Boehlje .informed Comm. Head that
there ,were existing procedures, in effect for, remedying any illegal
construction work .accomplished- wtho;ut:a'buildng permit, and. the
Commission was to. deal with the situation of .the "Zoning "Ordinance
requir:emerits. -Comm. Head exp.ressed'"his cgncern that the, last
property owner could be!mad'e'responsible for bringing his''building
up. to code;, although he°may not have been theviolator. Mr.
Boehlj`e replied. that :i'f' someone app:liea for a building permit and
violations: ar.e.";found at 'that "time, 'the, .building .would have tobe, •
brought up. to codei.
Comm. Waters expressed his concern tha,& from"a legal position .it
might prove. to be embarrassing, to the City .if` the 'Zonin'g, Ordinance
was changed;, since it would g_ue the homeowner a •clean bill of
health for something that -,he had done in disobedience of 'the law.
He'also stated that since insurance on homes is based on,cod`es and
' .standards., the -.City might. be underwr Ling the, fire" insurance on
the home. Comm: Waters stated that. ignorance has never been an
excuse to,disobey the law. Mr. Boehlje clarified that elimination
` 'of the requirement, o-f •one covered parking space 'for :each dwelling,
unit from the Zoning Ordinance would noC eliminate the requirement
to obtain a building permit f'or con:struction.' 'He also stated that
the City could not 'be, held resporis',ible for, illegal work done
without -a building; permit; and this deletion in the 'Zoning Ordi-
nance,would.,not l:egitimize'th'at work:
Comm. Head moved to eliminate the r.equirement for one -covered
parking space for each dwelling unit from the -Zoning Ordinance,,
and also to utilize the Grandfather Clause for •existing illegal
,.. conversions, but 'levy a stiff: penalty o•r fine ,upon any future
llegai'convers-ions. Chairman Horc_iza advised him that the
correct, motion 'wouldbe to make 'a recommendation to •the, City
Council that •action, be initiated to' so amend ;the Zoning Ordinance.
Comm`., Head replied that, he would amend'hi•s,motion accordingly.
Mr;: Bo6h e advised Comm." 'Head that he was,, in effect, stating .two
„r I'' yl sl 'i 'µ �' 7 '�m:""•' 'I��I'° °
,, ,,,, y .' 6' '., • h,i,l,,� �h n It
ip r "vi� I,d ” h,':lu", n 'i: lj",l^ tip i.
- l pis
yPlanning
•J. ^ai F. '�•e , , , I , '
' p�
Commission Minutl,.
1975i
es�M Oor,li.. ,betalmCt
nq "• i ., ,f„ f ill„6AV'
•
d ifferent thin 's,° +since i'f .a`'.re_ uirem`ent for:',one covered parking
ch dwellin unit wasldeleted,fr m the ZoningOrd
space ea g i, - o i-
"
Wfor
nance,,• 'ther'e' would be, noneed Ifor._ utilization of the Grandfather
' 1.1 0'" "I
Clausell'for'I,all ex slting:^illegal •or for levying a..stiff
1.�con.'version.s
penalty or fine f''orfuture illegal ,conversions. Comm. Head .stated
thal;t".he wished, to rephrase' 'his ,recommendation' to' the City `Council
to space for each
the.'requ.irementof tone covered parkng'g
°
dwellingnuntm the Z'oningordinance.1 Comm. ''Wriht" second°ed, l,l
the I Bond • questioned ifthe Commission had in fact
I
'" beenmaskedl. �f'orom
,the City Council.',"' Mr. �"Boehlj
recommen e
expla'ned ,that °the° letter.from, Mr°:, .Gav'rilof.f °had . been. sent, to the,
'
_. y g
� _ Cit Mara er; who'"''fin turn
Mayor, the Mayor had referred it„to the•
"l
1 it ongthemmissiil.agenda for October 27th and asked
;had p� aced •'
that the Plannin' on cons'ider.it prior to that date since'
il..was, a : planning .matter. I
I. 1, , l ,I ,M, II.i N
!
.„ 'h I, , ,• , ''; ,� ,.. °, .' •- ,J„
Comm:" Bond', questioned• the''''-_ eas'onin:g behind the present' requi"cement
dwelling ll"ing.unit.! Mr.
:one ace,. Boeh jePe
cover,ed'arking sp,
repled"tha:secure coveparking' and' "off' -street' is necessary to "
'
': I' "' I ° •. ,,
' dice vandalism. ,
ism. .,He also -ad uised that it is a gorlurinate"�„r
e uirement formulti-family units becausigives the renter
s;ome1's'ecur ty. .;Mr: Boelilje,,Istate& that," since' -the Commission was
leaning toward the possibility of eliminating the requirement of
one covereed` 'park'ing1 space Viper dwelling,.°un.i•t, 'per'haps it should be
1.left
infor „new' construction, , but. not lrequired after that., time.
'
Comm•. 'WrigYit stated' e ' he,' felt somof the conversions were actually
J
ill°
sinc.'e teliminated the
totheepthey .
,t,apearcef
an.of t'',I,r ,he :
II I'
anpp'asset I ,,
h o&:,at'tae,,
earance.. garage wit •.`Comm. Bond stated it
of
g o,,,„insist upon,°one, covered, parking space for new,
'imi 'h;tf b.e' wis;e t :_
oust ruct' ' en' allow for-garage,.conversion with some type
c tate:•off=st
,
o al.t'er reef a��ed• arkin Comm', 'Waters .stated he
f p' ,p 'g.
g,,.,l,�to the Zon_ in cheapen the 'City
ng for
andtshouldCnot be done witFioug Hold ngca publ, 'cehearin
„l
further, opinions. "i Mr. Bo•ehl`etreplied that if a recommendation to
J
change ;the,- Zoning Ordinance, na'nce• was . made .by° the Commission, it would
g
•l lll� ' ° ;� ��•, q, t' "
'l,go., to.;, the, City',,.Counci1:, wh_ o ' could' t_he'n,, ''direct the Planning ,.Com- ,
` either initiate action to -change- Zoning Ordinance
mission to
f ,Ifl l
a ew ,ohe
now, ol�l to wait, ,un them.an'nual: revi f ,the 2onin Ordinances.
I t i1 �': g
He reminded, the Commission}. that this: "ac,tion would involve u'b ic,
.
hearin s
Comm. Wr•i h g t stated'tha'tin"'seconding the motion t'o 'eliminate_ the
„
I ; l
11'onez, -dove red arkin space er,dwell-in unit from the, Ordi-
P` P g'• , g.
°� : ?t'ad the Ir'I�
„
nance he overlooked° multi 'fam'l unit facto and he
y.
yls ss,l l i,,.°" it,N I"' l
l,tended'I,'',to,iagree w,it,hll ,Comm. Bond',"regarding, retaining; the one ,
41
covered parking.. space and reque`'s, .,alternate off-street parking
I
if f ' conversi'd'n is� desired,: : Comm. , Head: hthereupon withdrew ,his
motion„ to; recommend to the City Council the elimination of' ,the one
"covered „par'king'' Is,pace„.peri'dwell'ing .unit.
I w' Il I I r
,I
Gavriolad'd e. ssed'' Ithe Commission.,'inf'gthem thatMr. Marin' o
in'„his ;position.as, a .real estate agent he :is .confronted with, this
pr'oblleffi wh''en` FHA or-'V.A. 'f.inanci.ng 'comes into the ,picture, since
-l3_
Petaluma, City -Planning Commission,Minutes, October 21,-1975
they request.a letter be sent.from.the City stating that the house
inee'ts the 'building code,., He advised* he 'was riot only concerned
—what would happen to his client,, but. also as to what would happen
to others' in similar areas: • Mr..:•"Gavriloff requested that some
type'of,.action be taken. to, clear up the matter; even if unfavorable.
;He alien questioned if cover-ed off. -street ,parking is eliminated, a's
discussed,, how many, off: -street parking'spaces' would still be
• requi'red
Discussion followed regarding .a recent request by Young America
Homes to decrease the driveway width,, and its. relation to this .
situation.. Mr-.. Boehlje clarified- that the Zoning Ordinance calls
for one.covered and two' uncovered parking spaces per dwelling
unit,. .,He, advised' that 'the Commission cOu1d 'retain this ?require -
merit, initially- 'and ,then require three,uncovered parking ,spaces
later if garageconversion 'took place..• , Comm'.. Waters; stated he
felt both' the driveway width, and thi's problem should `be looked at
-during the annual review, of .the: Zoning, Ordinance., Mr.. Boehlje
replied. -that the. City Council was l`ooki:ng 'for some type of indi-
-cation as to how -the- Planning Commission felt at -this: time as to
whether they should proceed with•abatement pr.oceedings,.or..what.
_ course of action. •would' ,provide .a satisfactory. remedy.
Comm. Head, stated he wished to go on. record as recommending .to the
!City Council that'.•they consider utilizing the Grandfather Clause
for -all existing illegal, conversions; but',levy a stiff penalty or
fine upon any future illegal conversions: He .advised that this
would give the .City Council something -to consider, and a public
hearing would'have to be held on the matter anyway Mr. Boehlje.
advised that,- this action- would be entirely different, from what the
Planning Commission- had' indicated— was their general consensus.'
Comm: Bond, questioned if the- Commission'-wa.s to address 'themselves
to the Grandfather Clause ,at all.. Mr. Boehlje advised 'that the,
Grandfather,Clause would .apply to. the. requirements ,for coVered-
park ng, not the r-equi.rement.'to take, out building permits. He
clarified that -if 'the recommendation was to require, one ,parking
space initially, but ,then allow conversions, the Commission.would
not have to, •deal with the, Grand. father C-1aus.e., Mr.. Bo
ehlje added
that, building codes would still.'apply and people would still. -need
building permits for conversions. Comm.'Head's,motion died for
Tack of 'a ,'second.
Comm. Wright, moved, to recommend. to. -the C ty-Couricil that ;the
present. Zoning Ordinance b.e changed to delete the requirement of
j one covered parking, space per each, dwelling unit., except for ,new
construction, with, th6 addition -that., ,if' the covered. parking, space
is taken `away for a dwelling unit, it be.' replaced by an uncovered
parking space that .has°been .paved and',conforms to ,the existing
Zoning Ordinance. Comm. Head seconded' 'the�motion.
AYES 4 NOES 1 ABSENT 2.
-4-
P"e'ta^luma .C'ity
Planning Commission', Minutes October I
PARKS -
III I ' r 111 ., 9. � :: �:' I •
SITE Mr: Boehlje briefly, explained the request for conversion; (if an
*J�RY
SIGN.` &EVIEW,:". ' ex 's.ting 'residence' at 829:'"Eas;t''�Washin'g'ton Street t o a real e"state'
s me house that`, Sousa v office: He clarified that,, this was-,t a
„.
• •'' '' re uehe
'.'P P P Y q.'
ache'co D'evelo ment` Com an had '''. st'ed;for conversion. -for
of,f ce,; use. ,Mr: Boeh'lje .advis.ed,,'-t,he.;,Commiss� on, the Architectural
&Site.".Design Review Committee°'`had no"t 'considered the project ''
•
'amino'_r, , � n.'l'y 'Is;ite y.desllg'n 'item on the
1 ,.� and l' 'was' 't'he''� o
aglend+al't•'was
d
(furnished-
'
to the- 'Commission for.
The plans .P
were
i I
Ir I d I
review.. Comm, "Bond. questioned„,the .free-Istanding sign',. ,and Mr..,
Boeh'l�:elhN repl,ed'I t„hat the sign, had„I,:beem incorrectly approved on the
m.
'
p'rior'° application, an if: the present' )applicant wishes the 'free-
standn'g sign -; ill wihl have torit'.apply"for a; variance. Comm. ,Head
questioned of this section of East. Washington Street has been
",I
w'idenedi to ''its° ful'hes"t extent at,i thi ,t-ime�: �"Mr,. Larry Parks
replied that the'take, on the lot is ohly'about 6 inches deep and
feetls'l"on '. "_ r °I' tl fa Payran;`S;treet, and „tlie're'fo"re
t , 'on' -the:'cor''n'e
g , ,cl'ose's
this site would not be affected.
"I. Mr. Boehlj,e' read',, the conditions of -approval as proposed by the
staf„f,'.' Mr: Larry Parksy' informed° tY e `Commission he was in agree -
c, " I
I men't wirth these'''conditons '"an dlll that' h'is+• on''ly. ' concern wa's the', sign.
He referred to the City's si&4 abatement p`rog'ram, and stated fie
h p'.
would' not: Iwish °'to put I'a sign' up now' that he would have to ..take
down later. abatement rocedure.
effectPhap.penlsh;e; would• 'feel di" 'the abate procedures
scriminated' against„
did not, in
since Dav-is'Realty 'had „just put; aup a' new;',s g"n, ,and the same con-
ditio' Is :existed1"' on -"their'. site' as t: site. Mr. Boehlje
replied,,) that Ate' I,wa's ,difficult t-o • te-11'''when-t"heI actual 'abatement
would be' started, but c'larf''ed' 'tla:t if a va-ra'nce was app'li'ed' for
I "I It
and°'°'grant'e'd,, -the-.re, would' b'e no. •need for +aba"teinent of this sign.
The cdlo'r :of' 'th"e•"'stucco's a ,'questioned';, and, Mr: Yarksi, (clarified
that it' would be white and, would continue, all around the building.,
' He further -.ad itsed.'that the, building bi's, now wood . siding, which
does' 1no,t meet, fire' code, standard's Mr. 3behlje added that 'the
.existing landscaping' would)'be retained and: additional landscaping' ^"
' '
ldbe'provided ,, Thali nment of „the drveway was then briefly
„
;
discusseds
I .� �' I
lii,i '1.,1i I ii I I I,•.. M,i'1' '�,• it ' ;I ' 1,11 II ' y . ,I ii Ii
mm." Wright" exp.'r:es''sed concern'' ab'out'`the,'peop'1e still living in
N,,, nsneya�rgs' how., the
replied
neighbortoodwould..b•edevelopedthat the
residential units were',Ilno-- ,nonco nf.orming,,, uses! and the, area was
'
zoned properly fora the• use requested.
C'omm-. • Head' made 'a to accept the, site design, with
)motion i,,conditions
ofapproval as "I',r'ecommended`"by tY e' stahff . ! " Comiii: Wright a;se'boifded
7...I
the motilom. L
AYES,-, , `5 NOES., 'O ABSENT 2 r i
r �I
' I a, ' i l '�I, I • " . ill i 'A,.
Petaluma •City Planning Commission Minutes;, October 21., 19.75, ti
QANTAS DEVELOP-,MEN,T. •.
Mr.; Leo,.Rach'a-1_,..Assoc-iate-. Planner,, .informed the Commission ,he.,
CORPORATION . - EIR• •.
:• wished -.to- discuss, ;the, :adequacy ;of • the ,Environmental Impact • Report
FOR MILIIMEISTER,..
•.,_ for,.,the^.,proposed.••,P.lan1.ned .Commun, tyt Dev_, o m a, p:rezonin,g;'"for: ,the
PROPERTY:
Qantas • Devel'opment Corpora-tion:. ;,, He,• -then .,„br-ief;.l.y summarized the
:.staff -report.. The .Commission was informed_.: that. the City Engineer's
.,,comments had, been. furnished just prior: to this evening; Mr. Rachal
then.'+brie'fly'• summar zed_•them, � He advised that the staff ,recom-
mendation was to take, no action on the ETR,certifieation until the
necessary addendum ,information is Incorporated into the -final EIR.
Mr: Rachal further.advsed -that: the .cost•o.:f.an EIk is not to be
considered a limitation for .•adequate, -analysis. 'Mr'. :Ra.'c'ha-1 stated
_
that, in,,..all ,fairnes,s %t.o the Planning• Comm ss,ion and consultant,, it
is-di'fficult� to comp'etentay •qudnt,1fy, environmental data and im-
_
'pacts;+ it. is even -more :dif;ficult to ,cite potential results of
impacts. -Nevertheless, he advised that theree are_ parameters to
'work within„ and.that ,is, what the assessment of. adequacy is about
in the- :EIR --:1,t is -a; ,full disclosure .document within •the ,guide-
lin.:es of the California.. Environmental- .Quality Act. Mr. Rachal
-
concluded by saying that, there' ,is a common philosophy 'in envi=
ronmental planning,; that there.is no "free lunch." there are
trade-offs; ..but b'efore..,p'lanners. and decision -makers can emba-rk, on
;
these„t,rade-off's,, they must, competently deal with the basic
impacts.,and. cumulative: impacts, and ';they must be adequately
s:
presented by•- the: consultant',.
Comm,. Head ;.q,uestoned ,the ,adequacy. of the••gudelines that have
:, ....,
been furnished toa the consultant 'by. ,the -City for its preparation, =•
inasmuch ;as; there were many d-screpanci°es: in the EIR.. Mr.. Boehlje
advised. that the, City ;guidelines were in compliance with the State.
:.
guidelines:,..and he, explained •. the EI•R.p;repa.ra:tion procedures. Mr.
y: r.
• •Boehlje also stated he did not feel. there was extensive criticism
of this `EIR-, but .-rather that there were, points that needed clari-
fication.or cor,rection,and it was in the, best interest of .the
Commission, to'l hpld..off cert_i—ication until these points were "
cor,rec-ted. .
Comm., Head stated tha,t.,f,rom, reviewing the. Elg,, it did not appear
'that the locat-ion* was even,, des. rab:le fo-r ',resident.ial development.
f
It, -was his„ :opinion, that' in -the future,, .if the City Allocation
Board is going to be, involved in r.eyiewing a= project,, an EIR
should be p-,ovided'.at, that time. He,stated that this procedure
would determine if the.land. - s suitable for development before
the developer :had' gone;. through, considerable ,expense:. Mr. - aciehi e
„
replied,.that thewr,e are. approximately 10_:to, 20 applicants each, year
under the Residential Development Control. 3ystem, :and that there
was no assurance that -•;any of these applicants would .receive develop -
menu allotments; therefore, the expense of preparing an E•IR, which
could. be, .approx matel-y, •$5,_000 'to $l5, 00.0, would be, to.o expensive
when the developer was not, certain If he, .would be awarded. an
allotment;. Mr: ,Boehlj'e added that just, he• awarding, of allotments
does not, insure. that --the developer will be allowed to build, since
this project must-- be p,rezoned, •-annexed•, Andithen 'subdivided, and
•
in fact;. the City' -may not want the. development for various reasons.
Petaluma .City
`Plann'ing "Commission M'nutes',' 'Oc:tober'.'21;;. 19T5 "
Mr, Del Davis address'ed.'tYie"" Commssion4, irif,ormingl' th'emi.',that. the
main purpose ofrthe'EIR,was� be a disclosure document, and obtain
„
f`ormato 'b=le'•., , .Hey' ''al's' o. stayed °tha't:' "in
the best rehab.le' .,in n• p", ss
._
this: p g g", ,: lie had, tried to b e more
' ' ` request at,. the time: of
c'onciserncaccordancelwzth-'thelCommia'"sion, s
the last .,presentation of an EIR., :Mr., -Davis stated that most, of
a
u. c
the comment's received' were" either informational ,or request
expansi''on on material,„prouided,';t,heref.ore,•,,6he did, not, believe, that
any'I ma 4or 'changes would' °be-r.equir.'ed ,a'14.hel would be willing to
rov�de �,'wha�t:eve'r� _ .
P: � was' neces'sar.y.,a
•wouldd. take• inc'ludincludethe com-,
Comm. r�,,lBond questioneed how �long lit, Ito
menus and make the dj;ustment suggested;: Mr. Davis replied 'that
'i d,take a r,oxim" qn_ .
t woul ate, ttw,o weeks' n' 'pp; y�� ., "Comm. Bond' uestioned if ,acontin'
olr if t would
u"'MrC1Jon'
Jomey_ ant
impairuprocedureseof,�the d'eveI`p ` sl n', Q
r is
velopment, Corporation„,.sta'ted he: felt 'it, would impair•' hs-
11,�that
p=ocedu'," r i res,,• and that "he -had hoped, that' c'e'r.t'ificaton would be
„
accompli'shedl within the 4twq week„'period._ "Mr: Boehlj•e' stated that
the staff -needed additional' time "after receiving the information
;h „ rom De`h ,Davis, , since Itsh'e` °ad'denduin':,inf'orma,tion,,, might possibly have
to be ref"er;re,d back 'to. outside" a'genc es. Comm. 'Head stated he
'felt These, c'ommen'ts. 's„houl'di;.be4 in'the; report."already•.
Comm. "Bonds' moved � that .`the ''pulbl'c "shearing"" ble,'c;ontnued,,.;to 'the
second regular"meeting.•in November. Comm.!•,Waters seconded the
motion. ,'th'e public hearing' to ,d'is'uss' any 'po'ssibleI adverse impact
of ,,the project_ „was then opened. .Mr. Boehlje stated' he wished to
address.hims'elf t6 Comm. He f ad,'is •comments regarding the fact that
the reviewing, agericiesNi comments.shou'ld have,'b'een.,,ipresented, in°,,the
draft EIR. He, ad'VTsed the :Comm -is , son, that the Preliminary draft
of the;,,I,,EI'R,, y y .staff and is no.t sent out to
is. only ,rev.iewed °b "Ithe� , ,I I
II
other'agencies because it would'add•a great,:deal of time to an-,
already„I'lengthy' process,-.,' :Therefore,, "the. draft EIR is the first
opportunity these agencie_s.have to review .i;t.' A lengthy dis-
I• '''
ro'• , G
�' c'edura'l roc,ess � of I
: cussi:on 'on, p EIR, s '`,follow.e"d'. It was noted
that Comm,. Bond had to in at 9.:25 P.m. ;, because of
this. I'an " theUeublicmliea- Hadn t
d the fact that, p . F i, g ` ' been open at, 'the
• rl
time e was, not taken on "his motion.
the motion was made, a vot
'Wright made a mot ionIto, continue the.,, ubl hea'ring`'.,to .-. •"
NovemberWaterrs! seconded the' motion.,
Mr.11 Jon 'Joslyn' 'asked `fhe C'ommasionif the p"ublic hea'rin'g could be
II is to ;Inbe ,.since continuing, it, ,would allow additional��commen.
madeed, " „
the November 18th meetn He f"elt the process might then
be de'la, ed "a' ain'� ,since Del .Davis m ht c'once vabl h'ave,.,'t'
„y g l I g', y o an'swe'r'
a '
es,tions also. Mr s re-
hsiona1.feed`s
i
o commendation' is'"''`ha't'•the en"B�r'e1reportttheill'
"" fission n t
t t .
consider is 'Therefore,,, en ion is to
c' nt. 1nue thlenp' u`kicohe"arin'g, and anyfurthercons derdat
d , ations that
the public wishes 'to ,baring up would b„eI proper,,. He'4,added t hat
further" comments
ents at the"time of the Novemb"er 18th meeting coup
dnbe
_7_
Petaluma, City Planning, Comission Minutes, October. 21., 1,05-
' furnished: between the time' of"the- certification by the Planning,
= Commiss'ion rand` .b`e•fore' it ,;goes to ' the City -Council. Mr. Davis,
•
statedthat'he felt .`Mr: Joslyn :was correct, znasmu'chas contit-
dance of the .publ:ic, hear,ing,.Vould =allow.•for Amore `public testimony;
!.,•a:o."which7t,he would, '.have t o • reply In specific "ty,. He .therefore:
•,cou°ld end -,up pub:lighing the: report threei:times.. Mr., Boehlje
replied'" that Pie would'':not have ,to republish, the report:;' but could
briefly addr'es.s the,'comments.and forward them in the form of an
addendum. to. the ,City Couieil..:Mr. Joslyn questionedif'.that
prot'edur:e could not, be' ,utilized right now,, "Mr. 'Boehlj,e, replied
tliat. his .recommendation -at, this point: is:' it is not in the
a g.
• ••" •• beinterest of the Plan_ nn" mm Coission to" certify the• draft ;EIR
st-
•as' being correct at this time-., -Mr,... B6ehlj.V advised that if the
•- Commission•wish'di.they could close tlie'public hearing and then
not have :further public input` at -the', November 18th meeting. A
disctssion followed'. with, regard to some of, the agencies who had
not .yet- replied': 'It `was' noted •that'. "the 45 'day .review -period for:
,reviewing.. agencies ha'd • expired. Mr .', Jos.lyn, stated he agreed. that
th:e. comments •made• were' su d ect? to conside;ra,t:ion by the Commission,
` but, ,con'tnual inflow should not be.all'o,we'd:.. Mr'. Boehlje replied
= !that -until the documen.t-Ts 'ac:tually satisfied by the Planning
Commiss'ion,, it is open to public review. Comm., Head stated that
the'peo,ple -,had. an opportunit-.y"to-ta'lk tonight at the public
hearing; and, therefore he `felt the public hear•in.g should be
dlo's e &.
1 , .AYES 1. NOES 3 ABS°ENT 3'
Comm. Head moved to .act ,upon ,the..EIR on the' 18th of 'Novemb'er,
subject to. all of. the discrepancies being corrected. Chairman
Horciza' then -closed -the public hearing-.. -Mr. Del Davis stated that
he• 'felt the proper action would be that the'Commission` would
a consider -,the ad'eq.uacy, 'of. the •report ,a.t 'the November .18th meeting.,
and - if All- of -these corrections' were made;;" "to- certify it.. Comm_.
Head amended..his.motion accord;ing•1y.'r -Comm. Waters seconded the
,motion .
AYES . , 4 NOES: 0 _ ` ABSENT - '3
OTHER BUSINESS:, Chairman Horciza'made:the foll:owing,:appointmen,t:s to.vatiou.s com-
-mittees
Architectural &-Site., Design Review Committee,:
Comm. Anthony'„ Wright- .Cgmm'.- Edwa=rd 'Hor,ciza_
Subdivi•sion_. Committee': :
Comm: '.Patricia Hlli•gos,s,
His�tbric"'& ,Cultural_. Preservation Committee.':
'Comm."G. Rolan_d.'Bond - Comiri. Lester Popp
-8
y rining C " - is'Is on' Mihu'te!s, October 21',' '11n975'
Petaluma City' Pla' omm
I, Mri.,„I Boehlje' '•adv„ised.',Iltha't, lf't migl..,.be 'necessaryr to .,appoint com
u
m_itaee members 'to•work.on, the General Plan and Environmental
P .. it Desi" n Plan Comm , _tees -"at a" lat"e'r, d'at'e.
ADJOURNMENT: At 9:47 p m'. the Commission adjourned t,o ,a Study Session with
r"egard° ,to t'he' Rules' and Regulation's oT the 'Planning C'oFnm ssion. ar.
� I
y
I
' I
I
u n' I al LI Cli'a it '
Attest: "
,.II. a �i • .. _lip Nall .. ,'I
a .
titi